Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court declines jurisdiction to hear an application by a landlord for a mandatory injunction for possession of rented commercial premises, where the tenant had commenced proceedings in the Circuit Court for a new lease, notwithstanding that it had executed a statutory renunciation of a right to a new tenancy, on the grounds that: (a) the landlord had failed to establish sufficient urgency for the High Court to interfere with a matter pending, despite the fact that it had planning permission to redevelop the site; (b) although the tenant had executed the renunciation, it was not sufficiently clear that it had no case, in circumstances where it claimed that the renunciation applied to 'business equity' but not 'long occupation equity' in the premises; and (c) even if the High Court assumed jurisdiction, the landlord had failed to establish sufficient grounds for the grant of a mandatory injunction.
Application for possession of property - mandatory order to deliver up possession - exercise of break option - business letting agreement - whether defendant had right to new tenancy - planning permission over site - whether renunciation of right to new tenancy applied only to five-year business equity or also to 20-year long use equity - Circuit Court proceedings pending - balance of convenience - mandatory order - stay on order - history of use of premises - 2011 short term business letting agreement - further agreement in 2014 - renunciation - further agreement in 2016 with renunciation - exercise of break option in 2019 - notice of intention to claim relief - whether High Court should intervene when proceedings pending in another court - whether sufficiently strong case to award mandatory relief - balance of convenience - whether to place stay on order pending outcome of Circuit Court action - whether any prospect of success - whether a sufficient degree of urgency - whether High Court should decline jurisdiction - statutory scheme for claim of new tenancy - right to remain in occupation pending determination by Circuit Court of right to new tenancy - whether landlord would suffer injustice if High Court did not determine claim for injunction - urgency - renunciation - whether tenant had no case - whether tenant had 20 years' occupation - estoppel - estoppel by convention - estoppel by representation.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.